Car Theft Insurance Question

[JimmyConwayNW]

I run a car sales business and have a combined motor trade insurance policy.

This weekend I left a car on Sunday night for an MOT at 1 of the local MOT centres we use.I had a phonecall Monday morning asking if we had dropped the car off.

Our car along with 2 other of their customer vehicles had been stolen after someone broke the front off the MOT centres letter box.

I have been advised by the garage owner following a call from his insurance broker that we would need to claim off of our own insurance policy under the road risk section.

I have been advised by my own insurance company that the garage should have customer car cover and that we should claim off that avoiding having to pay excess etc. I am sure the other 2 car owners will be advised the same.

I don't feel that any of this is due to the garage owners negligence it was an unpredictable criminal act.

In other circumstance had a customers vehicle been stolen from my own workshop whilst in my care I would not expect them to claim for the loss off their own policy I would be getting my own insurers to cover the loss.

For clarity my policy excess is £350. My own insurance policy is over £3000 per year and I am concerned of an increase.
The car that was stolen had been sold that day for £3000. It is a Ford Focus.

Could anyone help and advise me where I should be headed with this?

[TooMany2cvs]

JimmyConwayNW said:

...after someone broke the front off the MOT centres letter box.

...and got the keys, which had been pushed through the letter box?

The car had been left in the care of the test centre - so their insurer's problem.
...BUT...
They hadn't taken responsibility for it at the time of the theft, and it was your failure to ensure the keys were secure - so your insurer's problem.

This could get very interesting, because the next step is going to be whichever insurer gets handed the bill saying "Nope, you should have taken better care of the keys - look at this exclusion clause"

[LoonR1]

Expect a lot of pain, as neither insurer will be paying. Yours definitely won't as there is highly likely to be a stipulation in your policy of where keys must be kept overnight amd in an MOT testers post box will not be on that list.

You state that you accept the MOT guy wasn't negligent and that immediately removes any reason for his insurer to pay. Why would his insurer pay anyway, as far as they're concerned the car was never with them or in their control.

I'm also confused why you couldn't get the car to them during the working day. It's not like you're a 9-5 employee.

[Slimbull]

Umm, watching this one with interest.

[Stoofa]

Did the garage recommend/suggest that you leave the keys in their postbox and do you have any proof that they said this?

[Jimmyarm]

LoonR1 said:

Expect a lot of pain, as neither insurer will be paying. Yours definitely won't as there is highly likely to be a stipulation in your policy of where keys must be kept overnight amd in an MOT testers post box will not be on that list.

You state that you accept the MOT guy wasn't negligent and that immediately removes any reason for his insurer to pay. Why would his insurer pay anyway, as far as they're concerned the car was never with them or in their control.

I'm also confused why you couldn't get the car to them during the working day. It's not like you're a 9-5 employee.

Admittedly it's been a few years since I did any motor trade insurance work but, the consensus was that if a customer posted the keys into the garages premises out of hours then the car becomes the garages responsibility.

Which is why there will be a specific condition in the policy about the receptacle they are deposited into, a normal post box isn't sufficient as the ops garage has found out.

[LoonR1]

Jimmyarm said:

Admittedly it's been a few years since I did any motor trade insurance work but, the consensus was that if a customer posted the keys into the garages premises out of hours then the car becomes the garages responsibility.

Which is why there will be a specific condition in the policy about the receptacle they are deposited into, a normal post box isn't sufficient as the ops garage has found out.

Too individual to make sweeping statements about. Was it arranged? Who by? What if the garage knew nothing about it? And so on. There is no consensus on such widely differing circumstances.

This one looks like the OP is a world of financial pain IMO from the little info we have.

[Aretnap]

LoonR1 said:

Yours definitely won't as there is highly likely to be a stipulation in your policy of where keys must be kept overnight amd in an MOT testers post box will not be on that list.

Really? I've never come across a stipulation like that, and picking three random insurers' policybooks ( Admiral, Direct Line and Hastings) I can't find such a list in any of them. I just see the usual exclusions about leaving the keys in the car or having your car stolen by a person posing as a potential buyer. Which insurers have that exclusion?

[LoonR1]

Aretnap said:

LoonR1 said:

Yours definitely won't as there is highly likely to be a stipulation in your policy of where keys must be kept overnight amd in an MOT testers post box will not be on that list.

Really? I've never come across a stipulation like that, and picking three random insurers' policybooks ( Admiral, Direct Line and Hastings) I can't find such a list in any of them. I just see the usual exclusions about leaving the keys in the car or having your car stolen by a person posing as a potential buyer. Which insurers have that exclusion?

Motor Trade

This is a Motor Trade policy, not a Personal Lines policy like you've quoted

[dacouch]

Aretnap said:

Really? I've never come across a stipulation like that, and picking three random insurers' policybooks ( Admiral, Direct Line and Hastings) I can't find such a list in any of them. I just see the usual exclusions about leaving the keys in the car or having your car stolen by a person posing as a potential buyer. Which insurers have that exclusion?

Motor Trade policies generally require the keys at the traders own premises to be kept in a lockable key safe, a safe or removed from the premises as they used to have a habit of being broken into for the keys or having keys stolen from their desks in distraction thefts.

Some Insurers extend this wording to away from the premises

[Jimmyarm]

LoonR1 said:

Too individual to make sweeping statements about. Was it arranged? Who by? What if the garage knew nothing about it? And so on. There is no consensus on such widely differing circumstances.

This one looks like the OP is a world of financial pain IMO from the little info we have.

We can assume this is normal practice for the garage and op.

It is a fairly normal way for most garages to operate (having cars dropped off out of hours) hence why specific key deposit boxes are sold for this purpose.

I'll have a look at our policy at work tomorrow and see if there is specific mention of it.

As I said it's been a few years since I hung up my underwriting hat (and started working in the motor trade!) but I remember this topic being asked about and the consensus was that once the vehicle and keys were on the premises the vehicle was deemed to be in the custody of the garage, even if the keys were not physically given to an employee of the garage.

[JimmyConwayNW]

LoonR1 said:

Too individual to make sweeping statements about. Was it arranged? Who by? What if the garage knew nothing about it? And so on. There is no consensus on such widely differing circumstances.

This one looks like the OP is a world of financial pain IMO from the little info we have.

The MOT was arranged for Monday morning. The garage knew about it. They don't open Sunday which is why we dropped the keys. This one car belonged to my business the 2 other cars are both different private customers of the garage.

It's a car that stands me about £1700. Not really a world of financial pain athough on fairness it's a loss I would rather not make.

loon I thought you may be able to offer some decent advice hence posting here so quite happy to take on board your comments.

With the greatest respect I would not be posting keys into a business I didn't feel secure in doing so.

I leave no keys in my own business overnight.

[Aretnap]

LoonR1 said:

Motor Trade

This is a Motor Trade policy, not a Personal Lines policy like you've quoted

D'oh. Missed the facts hat it he OP was a trader. Thought it sounded rather odd. My bad - sorry.

[wolf1]

Jimmyarm said:

Admittedly it's been a few years since I did any motor trade insurance work but, the consensus was that if a customer posted the keys into the garages premises out of hours then the car becomes the garages responsibility.

bks! I will only take responsibility for a customers vehicle once they have handed the keys to me and I have checked the vehicle and it's location. Another reason I don't have a letter box or key drop off point.

[LoonR1]

Jimmyarm said:

We can assume this is normal practice for the garage and op.

It is a fairly normal way for most garages to operate (having cars dropped off out of hours) hence why specific key deposit boxes are sold for this purpose.

I'll have a look at our policy at work tomorrow and see if there is specific mention of it.

As I said it's been a few years since I hung up my underwriting hat (and started working in the motor trade!) but I remember this topic being asked about and the consensus was that once the vehicle and keys were on the premises the vehicle was deemed to be in the custody of the garage, even if the keys were not physically given to an employee of the garage.

It's not really an underwriting decision is it? The amount of times I used to get a bloody underwriter asking for an ex-gratis payment to keep their client happy after a loss like this is too high. It's a claims decision over negligence.

[TooMany2cvs]

JimmyConwayNW said:

I leave no keys in my own business overnight.

So you felt the keys were safer tucked just inside somebody else's tupperware letterbox than in your own locked and alarmed unit...?

Or is it that your insurance insist on any keys left in your unit being locked in a safe or similar?

[apguy]

As has been iterated a number of times, it's down to the policy details however I had a number of motor trade policies for my accident repair business and Aviva (to give a real example) appeared remarkably relaxed about the circumstances of vehicle theft - to the point that they specifically *included* cover for theft if the keys were left in the vehicle. They (Aviva) appear to have recognised that with a busy garage this would be a normal occurrence.

Obviously this is not the same scenario as the OP, but just wanted to point out that trade policies can cover significantly different scenarios to a domestic policy.

(this is of course also ignoring the fact that most trade policies only cover on trade values rather than retail)

[dacouch]

apguy said:

As has been iterated a number of times, it's down to the policy details however I had a number of motor trade policies for my accident repair business and Aviva (to give a real example) appeared remarkably relaxed about the circumstances of vehicle theft - to the point that they specifically *included* cover for theft if the keys were left in the vehicle. They (Aviva) appear to have recognised that with a busy garage this would be a normal occurrence.

Obviously this is not the same scenario as the OP, but just wanted to point out that trade policies can cover significantly different scenarios to a domestic policy.

(this is of course also ignoring the fact that most trade policies only cover on trade values rather than retail)

I'm guessing your unit has good physical security and a Red Care Alarm

[Jimmyarm]

LoonR1 said:

It's not really an underwriting decision is it? The amount of times I used to get a bloody underwriter asking for an ex-gratis payment to keep their client happy after a loss like this is too high. It's a claims decision over negligence.

What has negligence got to do with it ? This loss would be covered under the material damage section....

Perhaps your company works differently to the one I worked for bur ultimately cover decisions were made by the people writing the cover as they knew what was intended by the wording etc.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LoonR1 said:

It's not really an underwriting decision is it? The amount of times I used to get a bloody underwriter asking for an ex-gratis payment to keep their client happy after a loss like this is too high. It's a claims decision over negligence.

The amount of times I've seen an insurer refuse an ex gratia settlement to keep a client happy, only to have to offer a massive discount at renewal to keep the business when the client threatens to leave over the way the claim was handled. The renewal discount if often far higher that the ex gratia amount the client wanted in the first place.